I truly hope no one took my post as a joke. Because everything I wrote I have heard skydivers say on the DZ. Just this weekend I heard a jumper saying after the tragic incident in Chicago all hook turns should be banned period. So who’s right? The folks that would restrict us to no hook turns? That would certainly save lives, but look at what we would loose. If you really think a wing loading BSR is the answer start with your own DZ. If they won’t enforce one the what good would a new regulation do? Many people would just drop the USPA and then what? Jumpers would lie if there was a restriction is someone going to open every container and see what’s being jumped? More importantly it won’t take into account the new technology in the sport. There are canopies out there right now that can and are jumped at 1.2 wing loading for novice jumpers. Also it’s like the elliptical issue Dan Preston was right here for well over a year trying to educate people on the subject but for the most part he was ridiculed. Now Aerodyne in saying the same thing amazing isn’t it. Some of the more docile canopies are more elliptical then some of the pocket rockets. And there is no such thing as semi elliptical, or slightly tapered that’s what all elliptical are there are no full elliptical canopies. But manufacturers have to make stuff up because of the perceptions of some instructors and that gets passed on, then we have a new generation of misinformed people. I will say I have nothing but respect for the people concerned with saving lives in our sport. I just can’t agree that putting words on paper will change anything at all in that respect. But it will change jumpers opinions of the USPA and not for the better.

> Jumpers would lie if there was a restriction is someone going to >open every container and see what’s being jumped?

No. Most experienced jumpers can tell wingloading by just looking at how a wing flies. And if there's any question - right after landing, his canopy is out there, and the size is written right there.

>are canopies out there right now that can and are jumped at 1.2 >wing loading for novice jumpers.

This attitude is killing a lot of jumpers. There have been NO CHANGES in the laws of physics or aerodynamics. Smaller canopies are less forgiving than larger ones; always have been. Jumper's bones are not any stronger than they were ten years ago.

The difference is that, in some places, education is better. There are now canopy control classes that can let you jump a 2:1 Stiletto after 100 jumps safely - if you're willing to put the time in. Student jumpers at Roger Nelson's place can jump smaller canopies sooner because they get excellent HP canopy training, not because the Sabre2 is as forgiving as a Manta. If you continue to try to do one without the other (downsizing without education) the fatalities will continue to increase.

So the only answer is more education. If there were any way at all to get education to those who need it the most (i.e. the ones who are sure they _don't_ need it) without regulation I'd be all for it. I have heard no such plan.

> Jumpers would lie if there was a restriction is someone going to >open every container and see what’s being jumped?

No. Most experienced jumpers can tell wingloading by just looking at how a wing flies. And if there's any question - right after landing, his canopy is out there, and the size is written right there.

>are canopies out there right now that can and are jumped at 1.2 >wing loading for novice jumpers.

This attitude is killing a lot of jumpers. There have been NO CHANGES in the laws of physics or aerodynamics. Smaller canopies are less forgiving than larger ones; always have been. Jumper's bones are not any stronger than they were ten years ago.

The difference is that, in some places, education is better. There are now canopy control classes that can let you jump a 2:1 Stiletto after 100 jumps safely - if you're willing to put the time in. Student jumpers at Roger Nelson's place can jump smaller canopies sooner because they get excellent HP canopy training, not because the Sabre2 is as forgiving as a Manta. If you continue to try to do one without the other (downsizing without education) the fatalities will continue to increase.

So the only answer is more education. If there were any way at all to get education to those who need it the most (i.e. the ones who are sure they _don't_ need it) without regulation I'd be all for it. I have heard no such plan.

How about peer pressure. That's what seemed to get people to use AADs.

I have just over 200 jumps and my 135 Sabre is wingloaded at 1.2 to 1. I changed to the 135 from my 170 Sabre at about 180 jumps. I can picture jumping the 135 for several hundred jumps. I don't do, and have no intrest in, high performance landings. I do think that those that want to do them should get training and weigh the risks, then do what they want as long it does not put others at risk.

Our DZ has a seperate area for high performance landings, that seems to let them play and keeps others out of harms way, works for me.

Here is a quote from the incident forum where "skymick" is decribing his accident during a fun accuracy competition:

Quote:

im finally back from hospital after having a rod inserted in my L1 vertabrea and a bone graft from my hip.

Just to clarify a couple of things:

While the other guy did go low and was in my way he didnt cut me off but cause the other jumper was where i wanted to be and I was catching up to him I gave him a wide berth as I didnt want to cut him off but by that time I was too low and goin cross wind...I wish I knew why I had done the low turn...I just did it. Soon as I did it I knew i stuff up and started to flare but with not much luck.

I am able to walk, and sit without too much pain, just need to wear a brace for a few weeks which is a bit of a pain"

(I changed the key text to "bold"). As far as I know, Mick has about 250 jumps with about 100 the last 12 month and uses a Sabre 150 at 1.4 WL.

Now to my point: It has been mentioned before in this discussion that we can not talk to the dead jumpers, well let's listen to the ones who survived.

Notice the " I fxxed up but I do not know why " part of the quote. We all f*ck up under canopy and we tend to f*ck up more - or have less skills to recover -when we have less jumps or / and less training.

The higher the WL (combined with type of canopy) the worse the consequences of a f*ck up. We can not run away from this fact.

So, IF you want to reduce fatalities under canopy you have to EITHER limit people in regard to what they jump OR you have to train them better. Now as "billvon" and others have pointed out - if you want people to get better skills you have to "force" them. Why do people complete training to achieve certain licenses? Because they then qualify to do certain things they like to do - you want to do display jumps, you train and you get a display license. Same should apply for canopy control.

The guys who are aginst any regulations and tell us that they are doing just fine with their canopy would have no problems passing this type of canopy control course to qualify for their personal WL.

I screwed up this weekend. Not bad, but I did screw up. I was setting up for the pond, and got a little lift right when I started my hook. I did a little left, then a 180 right hook, and planned out a little low on the pond. While I was planning my "cool ass swoop" My right knee dug into the pond. No carnage, but lots of splash. I managed to stand the landing (running like hell mind you).

Now I have 2,900 jumps. I was on my Stiletto 107 loaded at 1.68. I also have close to 1,700 jumps on a Stiletto 107. And several hundered on smaller canopies (69,88,96 Xbraced, 93,97 conventional)

Part of the problem with peer pressure not working is that folks who should be role models set bad examples. Putting a swoop pond close to the spectator and packing area says "Cool people swoop; the coolest swoop the most." Every time someone swoops that pond, he or she encourages less experienced jumpers to try it, too. How about moving swoop courses to the far side of the landing area, or to some place out of sight, like behind the hangar? It's time for leaders in our sport to recognize the part they are playing, to change their own behavior, and to lead by example.

Part of the problem with peer pressure not working is that folks who should be role models set bad examples.

Is it bad example for me to whip a 540 degree turn while doing relative work?

Is it a bad example for me to swoop right to my slot?

Is it a bad example for freefliers to show their work at the bar? I think it looks cool, but I am not about to try it. I don't have the skill that they do.

The biggest problem is that the new guys want to be like the guys that swoop the pond, but are unwilling to listen to how we got where we are...they want to take the mythical "short cut". They think that if they get the same or better canopy that I have they can do what I do or better.

Because it has to be the canopy that lets guys get good swoops..It can't possibly be skill and experience.

Why is it that the word experience is a bad word?

Don't do the things you see guys doing if they have more experience than you. If they tell you not to do it...Listen to them and don't do it.

There is the big problem...I see guys do stunts on motorcycles all the time...I don't do them because I don't have the skill or experience to do them.

These new guys should not pick canopies based on ego. Thats the issue.

There will always be guys with the skills and experience to do cool things...the trick is to realize that just because they can do it, does not mean that you can.

I'd say more education, because it's not only high wingloading that kills (far from it) I guess that better education would help people to understand what wingload is good for them, and what they can achive and should be able to do on a given canopy before considering anything more radical.

>Reduce it to what? At what level do they become acceptable? What is your objective?

To reverse the trend. We are unlikely to get fatalities to zero; letting them continue climbing also seems like a poor option. To turn the question around - at what point would _you_ agree to regulation? When one person a week dies under a good canopy? 2? 10? Or is any regulation at all unacceptable. no matter what effect it has on fatalities?

for this we HAVE to look at the increase in number of jumps & number of people making jumps..is one per week to much?? 52 per year? perhaps, perhaps when 10,000 jumps per week are happening, what about if its 20,000? How do you balance the fact that with increased popularity and participation, your also going to have increased accidents and a higher percentage of “Darwin candidates” as well?

if dropzones start making double the number of jumps i would expect (all other things staying the same, as if they ever do) that the number of fatalities would MORE than double..if we are going to assign numbers like this you really HAVE to look at total numbers, and compare the number of incidents/injuries to other activities as well, to determine what a particular 'sport culture' will bear..

skydiving is by definition a very high risk sport. I would imagine its acceptable accident rate would be higher than say ‘less dangerous’ sports such as.....horseback riding??

yes there is a reason i chose that one..look up its accident/fatality numbers and tell me WE still have a problem, in comparison to more 'tame' activities.

i realize this is an emotionally charged issue, and every body in such a small sport has perhaps a more significant impact because of the close knit nature of the skydiving community... but we certainly need more and better documented numbers about all aspects of skydiving and any increase in fatality/injury raters before making any arbitrary regulatory decisions..

also: to make the ‘unofficial’ poll numbers more meaningful, perhaps everyone should also list their age & # of outside responsibilities.. I think there we be just as much correlation there as the ‘old timers’ find between low jump numbers and those not wanting regulation.

Some people ‘design’ there lives to accept higher levels of risk by limiting outside responsibilities. Everyone should look at their personal reasons for their own risk level and realize that not everyone else has the same reasons for deciding what is acceptable and what qualifies as “those insane F$#^$rs over there”. Living to be 80 isnt everyone’s goal in life..

Just because you have no desire to try something someone else finds joy (and danger) in is no reason to impose your more conservative mandates on them..

maybe we just need another waiver for HP canopy / high WL’s for everyone who wants to take that risk, then no one can whine about “I didn’t know the danger..”.

>Some people ‘design’ there lives to accept higher levels of risk by >limiting outside responsibilities. Everyone should look at their > personal reasons for their own risk level and realize that not > everyone else has the same reasons for deciding what is acceptable > and what qualifies as “those insane F$#^$rs over there”.

Of course, and no one is saying that you should not be able to pull at 250 feet, or drink and jump, or jump a 2 to 1 loaded canopy at 35 jumps. You just can't do it at a USPA DZ (the first two due to current BSR's, the third under this new proposal.)

I think you should have a right to do whatever you want provided you don't hurt anyone else. But if you want to use someone else's stuff to do it (airplanes, representation to the FAA, training programs etc) expect a few restrictions.

>Just because you have no desire to try something someone else > finds joy (and danger) in is no reason to impose your more > conservative mandates on them.

In my case the opposite is true. I like BASE jumping; I've pulled as low as 200 feet during a BASE jump. Back when I was an S+TA I would ground someone for pulling at 500. Not because I don't like pulling low (I actually do) but because, at a USPA drop zone, we have different - and higher - standards of safety than we have at an unregulated bridge.

>maybe we just need another waiver for HP canopy / high WL’s for > everyone who wants to take that risk, then no one can whine > about “I didn’t know the danger..”.

There is such a message on the back of every canopy, and in the waiver the DZ. A new waiver will get as much attention as those other messages get i.e. none.

so you are of the opinion then that the USPA should be for "skydivers who dont like taking risks or anyone taking risks around them"?

the USPA need to take into account that its members (or a good portion of them at least) WANT to be able to risk their lives under HP canopies without arbitrary jump number restrictions..promote education (offer discounts to DZs that have Canopy control courses, offer discounted jump tickets to jumpers who takes them..etc) without continuing the trend to 'legistate risk" out of everyones lives..

if the waivers are ignored now then why are you advocating MORE USELESS pieces of paper??? why dont people understand that there are obviously individuals out there that feel the risks are perfectly acceptible?? even with a high % chance of death?

why cant we let "the people whos stuff your using to to it" ie : the DZOs & ST&A'sdecide what risks they let their jumpers (and source of income dead jumpers dont buy jump tickets) take is too much?? why the push for over reaching control?? why not develop a program that ENCOURAGES DZs to provide canopy control classes for those who wish them? seems like all the manufacturers would also be interested in encouraging a program that would help them sell canopies too. (price discounts for those with canopy 'ratings'?? I think there are lots more methods that should be used to encourage canopy knowledge BEFORE we step in and start making abitrary regulations..

those who dont can continue to pound in..eventually the message will get out, and for those who stilll miss it..oh well....IGNORANCE IS PAINFUL ..didnt you read your waiver???

>so are of the opinion then that the USPA should be for "skydivers >who dont like taking risks or anyone taking risks around them"?

USPA is for jumpers who support basic safety regulations, yes. That translates to taking less risks than you otherwise could. At a USPA drop zone you can't pull at 500 feet, even if you freely choose to take the risk of doing so.

>if the waivers are ignored now then why are you advocating MORE >USELESS pieces of paper???

No pieces of paper. Just a rule that will help keep newer jumpers alive until they can make better decisions. Just as the 2000 foot rule requires no new paper, but keeps people alive.

>why dont people understand that there are obviously individuals >out there that feel the risks are perfectly acceptible?? even with i >high % chance of death?

There must be. I've never met one. We can't ask the dead, but of the dozen or so serious injuries that Jack Gramley dealt with while he was manager at Perris, not a single one said "I accepted that this could happen due to my experience level." They all said "I thought I could handle it."

So I'm sure there are individuals out there that truly understand the risks and accept them. From all evidence I've seen they are greatly in the minority. The vast majority of those injured simply did not understand the risk and/or overestimated their own skill.

> why not develop a program that ENCOURAGES DZs to provide >canopy control classes for those who wish them? seems like all >the manufacturers would also be interested in encouraging a >program that would help them sell canopies too. (price discounts for > those with canopy 'ratings'??

Now that's a good idea! If I saw programs like that being pushed I'd be a lot more prone to say "let's see if that fixes it." Of course, if only a few canopy mfrs did it it would be useless; the jumper would just buy the cheaper Xaos than the more expensive Velocity (assuming PD used such an incentive and Icarus did not.) Perhaps PIA could be of some assistance here.

>I think there are lots more methods that should be used to >encourage canopy knowledge BEFORE we step in and start making > abitrary regulations..

I would tend to agree, and the moment I see one of those programs get off the ground I will stop pushing for new regulation.

of the dozen or so serious injuries that Jack Gramley dealt with while he was manager at Perris, not a single one said "I accepted that this could happen due to my experience level." They all said "I thought I could handle it."

Well now, that isn't a biased sample, is it?

Betting it all on a straight flush to a 10 and losing to a straight flush to a queen sux too. That it happens from time to time doesn't automatically make betting it all on a straight flush to a 10 a bad idea. That's a (edit: an -- gosh I'm an idiot) example--not a direct analogy, for the risk of hurting oneself with a high WL is probably greater than losing with a straight flush to a 10...but there's a point underneath there that it isn't clear everybody understands...

Accepting a level of risk is accepting a set of possibilities with a probability distribution. It doesn't mean you'll be satisfied with every possible outcome...when you talk about risk it often means that some of the outcomes are undesirable... Reducing the undesirable outcomes to the unavoidable or the unforseeable is a lofty goal--for the risk averse. It is not necessarily the goal of rational, educated, etc risk-accepting individuals.

I put myself in the category of risk-averse...but I don't think it's right to extend my risk aversity into the lives of others -- except when other people's decisions endanger me of course...

I truly hope no one took my post as a joke. Because everything I wrote I have heard skydivers say on the DZ. Just this weekend I heard a jumper saying after the tragic incident in Chicago all hook turns should be banned period. So who’s right?

A better decision to prevent canopy collisions is to never have another canopy in the air at the same time as you. So, since we know it always takes two for a collision to happen we should just ban all aircraft that carry more than one jumper at a time. Right? It's not the hook turn, it's the collision hazard. But we all know that is impractical and not going to happen. So how do we prevent people from colliding in this case? That's the question we are trying to answer. We know the geni is out of the bottle and high performance landings will never go away.

To those that believe everyone should be able to do whatever they want without regulation: We live in a society of rules. They exist mostly because people have been shown to not be able to control their actions. Remember, this wingload BSR is not to say you can NEVER be able to fly certain wingloadings. It is to say that there needs to be a graduated progression towards heavier wingloadings. Teenagers in many states now have to go through a graduated program when they get their driver's license. As a society we recognize that the world we live in is NOT the same as in the 50s and 60s. There needs to be certain guidelines to keep teens alive while they learn and mature. The canopies we fly now are nothing like what we (skydivers) flew in the 70s and 80s. We must recognize that the world has changed and that there may need to be a graduated progression for the PRIVILEGE of flying certain canopies. Remember, skydiving is not required for normal living. It IS a privilege. Since many have spoiled it for the rest and many of us are tired of seeing broken bodies on the ground and going to funerals and memorials I say we do need a graduated program for wingloading.